To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

IRWIN UEB: ‘I think I’m right quite often on university matters, and I can be a persistent son of a bitch. '
Lieb's LAS legacy: persistence, progress
By Marc Igler
Editor
When Irwin Lieb learned that the English alphabet consists of only 26 letters, he nearly threw a tantrum in front of his elementary school teacher. Lieb thought it was "a damn outrage” that the language should be limited to such a small number of characters and that he couldn't pronounce a word that he couldn't spell.
A few years later when he was learning how to diagram sentences, Lieb again felt it was “a damn outrage" that he couldn't write a sentence that he couldn't diagram.
Lieb, who has now settled into his job as vice president and dean of the university's College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, has been sparring with similar frustrations all his life. In his words, he is "never happy, never altogether happy."
His insatiable appetite for improvement has made an impact on campus since President Zumberge lured him away from the University of Texas in 1981. In just over two years, Lieb has earned a reputation for being at the center of both controversy and admiration.
Many campus officials say that Lieb is uncompromising, overbear-
_ ing and only satisfied when he
gets his way. Yet the same people admit that his decisions are usually the right ones and that if there is one person whom they would like to see represent the university, it would be Lieb.
In his post at LAS, the 58-year-old administrator oversees the university's largest academic division. He looks after more than 12,000 students and his office accounts for roughly one-quarter of the university's budget.
He makes most of the crucial decisions in departments ranging from marine sciences to linguistics and regularly deals with most of the university's deans and directors. His method of operation has been called heavy-handed by some, fair and diplomatic by others.
"I’ll tell you a story," he says in a dry and monotone voice. "I was raised on Western movies, and I have always been one to believe that good guys win in the end. Whether people like me or not is their business. I know some people think I want everything. I've heard that. J don't want everything, but I certainly want some things."
Lieb was one of the last top campus officials hired in the first round of Zumberge's administrative sweep after taking office four years ago. He was hired for the expressed purpose of putting some life back into the university's undergraduate programs, particularly the humanities.
He came to the university because he could "smell the promise and aspiration," and he says so looking you straight in the eyes.
Often Out on a Limb
Some of his early decisions on campus raised both hopes and eyebrows. Many policies became known as "Lieb's work" rather than the university's.
For example, after less than a year in his job, Lieb's name kept appearing in the news concerning the university's negotiations to buy the Saturday Review, a respected but financially troubled cultural journal
Lieb headed the effort personally, and many campus administrators believed he was overstepping his bounds.
The university eventually decided that buying the Saturday Review would be too risky financially. Lieb was "deeply disappointed" and said the decision prompted "the first headache I've had in 25 years."
"I had it fully investigated," he recalls. "When the university decided against it, I actually thought of buying it myself. But it would have been a splashy move for the university at a cheap price. The publicity alone would have been worth the cost."
Lieb likes splashy moves and says that the university "has been brilliant at times in seizing opportunities, and at other times has missed the boat entirely." But his style at LAS has been far from splashy; he is stressing, above all, the three Rs.
(Continued on page 2)
He came to the university because he could "smell the promise and aspiration/' and he says so looking you straight in the eyes.
trojan
Volume XCIV, Number 59 University of Southern California Thursday, December 1, 1983
Wall cites ‘political, personal, philosophical’ considerations
By Jennifer Cray
Staff Writer
Resistance to his policies, family considerations, and a desire to move on motivated the resignation earlier this week of Edward Wall, dean of admission and financial aid.
Wall, who formally resigned Monday, said a combination of "philosophical, political and personal reasons" prompted his decision and added, "I guess it's been kind of a mismatch between me and some of what USC stands for."
The 48-year-old administrator, who has been at the university for a year and a half, in part cited "a small number of powerful and very conservative alumni" as the main opposition to the implementation of some of his admission and financial aid policies.
Specifically, those policies include "providing equity financial aid packaging" for students, "improving the quality of the undergraduate," and contributing to the improvement of the
community surrounding campus, Wall said.
Concerning financial aid packaging, Wall said, "being able to meet the demonstrated (financial) need (of students) is one thing, but it's how we meet the need."
"I know one way to get good students is to offer merit financial aid, but I'm not sure that it's as much of an incentive as people think it is," Wall said, adding that the university should channel its funds more toward gift aid (i.e. grants and scholarships) rather than self-help assistance (i.e. work study and various loan programs).
Wall, however, limited his criticism to certain alumni groups, not the alumni as a whole, and did not blame the administration and other university officials for his dissatisfaction.
"A great university needs three things: great facilities, a great faculty, and great students," he said. "We have the facilities and the faculty, and
we're beginning to get the students."
"I think this university could be the best university on the planet, but I don't think it wants to bad enough," Wall said.
In particular, he said that the university must stop admitting students because of their Trojan family ties, but rather "must start saying no to people who are not good students and who will not contribute to the university by their presence."
"We want and need desperately better students," he said. "That has offended many people outside the university, and that may be interpreted as insensitivity, but if that's insensitivity to the Trojan family. I'll keep doing it."
Another reason that Wall cited as contributing to his departure is what he said is university neglect of minority students in the university area who want to attend the university but do not have the financial means. He again singled out (Continued on page 16)
Fired parking attendants doubt motives, legitimacy of auditors
By Joann Galardy
Assistant Gty Editor
Two parking attendants, fired last week for misappropriation of funds by parking operations, claim they were were not given an adequate chance to defend themselves.
Joseph Stewart, a 14-year employee, and Cliff Newman, a four-year employee, were fired last Wednesday because money was missing from deposits at the end of their shifts, said Carl Levredge, director of parking operations. The attendants had also failed to hand out parking receipts, he said. The firings came following separate inspections the previous evening by auditors from an outside company hired by the university.
While Stewart recalled the alledged misappropriation, Newman said he does not remember any incident.
"I had no idea what the whole thing was all about," said Newman about his firing. "I question the legitimacy and the motives of the auditing company."
Newman has filed a formal grievance with the Affirmative Action agency on campus in order to redress the unfairness he feels has been done. He said he is not sure whether he will fight to get his job back.
"I can appreciate a sense of communication with Affirmative Action that I never had with the department," he said.
Stewart is currently seeking legal advice in the matter, but wishes only to clear his name, not return to his former job.
When the auditors came through the parking gates last Tuesday, they acted like visitors and paid a $2.75 parking fee. After paying the fee they were given their change, but were not given a receipt, according to a report submitted by the auditors to the parking operations office.
Normally, parking attendants collect the money and then punch a pay receipt through a time clock. Stewart said he simply forgot to give the auditor his receipt.
"Some man came through my gate and gave me $5, and I gave him $2.25 in change," said Stewart. "It never dawned on me that I didn't give the man his ticket."
Stewart said the same man came through his gate twice during the evening, each time driving through before Stewart could give him a ticket.
After realizing that the man did not receive a ticket, Stewart took the $5.50 in collected fees and set it aside, keeping it separate from the money
collected and accounted for at the end of every shift.
Stewart said he does not exactly understand why the confusion over the money occurred, but said the money sat on the counter at the parking gate for two or three hours and during that time he had forgotten why the money was there.
"When I closed up, I put the money in my pocket," he said. "I tried to explain the situation (to the supervisors), but there was no explanation to give."
Stewart said he was fired by Richard McCormick, administrator of parking operations. He said he was called into the office and fired without any discussion.
McCormick said both men were given a chance to explain their situations but that the explanations were not acceptable to the supervisors. He refused to comment further because of possible legal action in the future.
Levredge supported the action of his program saying, "We have to trust our employees and if that trust is broken, we must take serious action."
He said that both of the attendants were given an opportunity to review the reports compiled by the auditors and to discuss the situation with the supervisors.
"We try to be fair with our employees, but we must establish certain guidelines so the university does not loose money,” Levredge said.
While he did admit that there could be extenuating circumstances, Levredge said that in most cases that involve tampering with money, the employee will be terminated regardless of the monetary amount involved. The final decision rests with Levredge, McCormick and Gloria Payne, the program's assistant director.
Levredge defended the policy of using auditors to monitor parking attendants. He said the auditors were hired to gain an "outside opinion of how our people conduct themselves at the gate."
While each parking attendant is told that the auditors will monitor their actions occasionally, they are never told who the auditors are or when they will be investigating.
Each auditor visits a parking gate and acts like a visitor to the campus. They ask questions of the attendants and rate them according to efficiency, accuracy of information and friendliness, Levredge said.
He said the intent of the program is not to trick the employees or to check up on them. He added that in the past, reports from the auditors have been positive.

IRWIN UEB: ‘I think I’m right quite often on university matters, and I can be a persistent son of a bitch. '
Lieb's LAS legacy: persistence, progress
By Marc Igler
Editor
When Irwin Lieb learned that the English alphabet consists of only 26 letters, he nearly threw a tantrum in front of his elementary school teacher. Lieb thought it was "a damn outrage” that the language should be limited to such a small number of characters and that he couldn't pronounce a word that he couldn't spell.
A few years later when he was learning how to diagram sentences, Lieb again felt it was “a damn outrage" that he couldn't write a sentence that he couldn't diagram.
Lieb, who has now settled into his job as vice president and dean of the university's College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, has been sparring with similar frustrations all his life. In his words, he is "never happy, never altogether happy."
His insatiable appetite for improvement has made an impact on campus since President Zumberge lured him away from the University of Texas in 1981. In just over two years, Lieb has earned a reputation for being at the center of both controversy and admiration.
Many campus officials say that Lieb is uncompromising, overbear-
_ ing and only satisfied when he
gets his way. Yet the same people admit that his decisions are usually the right ones and that if there is one person whom they would like to see represent the university, it would be Lieb.
In his post at LAS, the 58-year-old administrator oversees the university's largest academic division. He looks after more than 12,000 students and his office accounts for roughly one-quarter of the university's budget.
He makes most of the crucial decisions in departments ranging from marine sciences to linguistics and regularly deals with most of the university's deans and directors. His method of operation has been called heavy-handed by some, fair and diplomatic by others.
"I’ll tell you a story," he says in a dry and monotone voice. "I was raised on Western movies, and I have always been one to believe that good guys win in the end. Whether people like me or not is their business. I know some people think I want everything. I've heard that. J don't want everything, but I certainly want some things."
Lieb was one of the last top campus officials hired in the first round of Zumberge's administrative sweep after taking office four years ago. He was hired for the expressed purpose of putting some life back into the university's undergraduate programs, particularly the humanities.
He came to the university because he could "smell the promise and aspiration," and he says so looking you straight in the eyes.
Often Out on a Limb
Some of his early decisions on campus raised both hopes and eyebrows. Many policies became known as "Lieb's work" rather than the university's.
For example, after less than a year in his job, Lieb's name kept appearing in the news concerning the university's negotiations to buy the Saturday Review, a respected but financially troubled cultural journal
Lieb headed the effort personally, and many campus administrators believed he was overstepping his bounds.
The university eventually decided that buying the Saturday Review would be too risky financially. Lieb was "deeply disappointed" and said the decision prompted "the first headache I've had in 25 years."
"I had it fully investigated," he recalls. "When the university decided against it, I actually thought of buying it myself. But it would have been a splashy move for the university at a cheap price. The publicity alone would have been worth the cost."
Lieb likes splashy moves and says that the university "has been brilliant at times in seizing opportunities, and at other times has missed the boat entirely." But his style at LAS has been far from splashy; he is stressing, above all, the three Rs.
(Continued on page 2)
He came to the university because he could "smell the promise and aspiration/' and he says so looking you straight in the eyes.
trojan
Volume XCIV, Number 59 University of Southern California Thursday, December 1, 1983
Wall cites ‘political, personal, philosophical’ considerations
By Jennifer Cray
Staff Writer
Resistance to his policies, family considerations, and a desire to move on motivated the resignation earlier this week of Edward Wall, dean of admission and financial aid.
Wall, who formally resigned Monday, said a combination of "philosophical, political and personal reasons" prompted his decision and added, "I guess it's been kind of a mismatch between me and some of what USC stands for."
The 48-year-old administrator, who has been at the university for a year and a half, in part cited "a small number of powerful and very conservative alumni" as the main opposition to the implementation of some of his admission and financial aid policies.
Specifically, those policies include "providing equity financial aid packaging" for students, "improving the quality of the undergraduate," and contributing to the improvement of the
community surrounding campus, Wall said.
Concerning financial aid packaging, Wall said, "being able to meet the demonstrated (financial) need (of students) is one thing, but it's how we meet the need."
"I know one way to get good students is to offer merit financial aid, but I'm not sure that it's as much of an incentive as people think it is," Wall said, adding that the university should channel its funds more toward gift aid (i.e. grants and scholarships) rather than self-help assistance (i.e. work study and various loan programs).
Wall, however, limited his criticism to certain alumni groups, not the alumni as a whole, and did not blame the administration and other university officials for his dissatisfaction.
"A great university needs three things: great facilities, a great faculty, and great students," he said. "We have the facilities and the faculty, and
we're beginning to get the students."
"I think this university could be the best university on the planet, but I don't think it wants to bad enough," Wall said.
In particular, he said that the university must stop admitting students because of their Trojan family ties, but rather "must start saying no to people who are not good students and who will not contribute to the university by their presence."
"We want and need desperately better students," he said. "That has offended many people outside the university, and that may be interpreted as insensitivity, but if that's insensitivity to the Trojan family. I'll keep doing it."
Another reason that Wall cited as contributing to his departure is what he said is university neglect of minority students in the university area who want to attend the university but do not have the financial means. He again singled out (Continued on page 16)
Fired parking attendants doubt motives, legitimacy of auditors
By Joann Galardy
Assistant Gty Editor
Two parking attendants, fired last week for misappropriation of funds by parking operations, claim they were were not given an adequate chance to defend themselves.
Joseph Stewart, a 14-year employee, and Cliff Newman, a four-year employee, were fired last Wednesday because money was missing from deposits at the end of their shifts, said Carl Levredge, director of parking operations. The attendants had also failed to hand out parking receipts, he said. The firings came following separate inspections the previous evening by auditors from an outside company hired by the university.
While Stewart recalled the alledged misappropriation, Newman said he does not remember any incident.
"I had no idea what the whole thing was all about," said Newman about his firing. "I question the legitimacy and the motives of the auditing company."
Newman has filed a formal grievance with the Affirmative Action agency on campus in order to redress the unfairness he feels has been done. He said he is not sure whether he will fight to get his job back.
"I can appreciate a sense of communication with Affirmative Action that I never had with the department," he said.
Stewart is currently seeking legal advice in the matter, but wishes only to clear his name, not return to his former job.
When the auditors came through the parking gates last Tuesday, they acted like visitors and paid a $2.75 parking fee. After paying the fee they were given their change, but were not given a receipt, according to a report submitted by the auditors to the parking operations office.
Normally, parking attendants collect the money and then punch a pay receipt through a time clock. Stewart said he simply forgot to give the auditor his receipt.
"Some man came through my gate and gave me $5, and I gave him $2.25 in change," said Stewart. "It never dawned on me that I didn't give the man his ticket."
Stewart said the same man came through his gate twice during the evening, each time driving through before Stewart could give him a ticket.
After realizing that the man did not receive a ticket, Stewart took the $5.50 in collected fees and set it aside, keeping it separate from the money
collected and accounted for at the end of every shift.
Stewart said he does not exactly understand why the confusion over the money occurred, but said the money sat on the counter at the parking gate for two or three hours and during that time he had forgotten why the money was there.
"When I closed up, I put the money in my pocket," he said. "I tried to explain the situation (to the supervisors), but there was no explanation to give."
Stewart said he was fired by Richard McCormick, administrator of parking operations. He said he was called into the office and fired without any discussion.
McCormick said both men were given a chance to explain their situations but that the explanations were not acceptable to the supervisors. He refused to comment further because of possible legal action in the future.
Levredge supported the action of his program saying, "We have to trust our employees and if that trust is broken, we must take serious action."
He said that both of the attendants were given an opportunity to review the reports compiled by the auditors and to discuss the situation with the supervisors.
"We try to be fair with our employees, but we must establish certain guidelines so the university does not loose money,” Levredge said.
While he did admit that there could be extenuating circumstances, Levredge said that in most cases that involve tampering with money, the employee will be terminated regardless of the monetary amount involved. The final decision rests with Levredge, McCormick and Gloria Payne, the program's assistant director.
Levredge defended the policy of using auditors to monitor parking attendants. He said the auditors were hired to gain an "outside opinion of how our people conduct themselves at the gate."
While each parking attendant is told that the auditors will monitor their actions occasionally, they are never told who the auditors are or when they will be investigating.
Each auditor visits a parking gate and acts like a visitor to the campus. They ask questions of the attendants and rate them according to efficiency, accuracy of information and friendliness, Levredge said.
He said the intent of the program is not to trick the employees or to check up on them. He added that in the past, reports from the auditors have been positive.